From Abracadabra to Zombies

Book Review

In a chapter on how
not to investigate the paranormal, Radford jokes that the entire
chapter could consist of just two words: watch television. He
could just as well have advised the reader to pick up almost any
book on ghosts, demons, spirits, aliens, lake monsters, crop
circles, the chupacabra, or other “strange and bizarre” things.
The bar for paranormal investigation in the popular media has
been set very low, as evidenced by the overall poor quality of
work produced so far. Radford hopes to raise the bar by
clarifying and exemplifying the standards that should guide a
scientific investigator.

Fortunately, not all
paranormal investigations have been of poor quality. Radford
himself, Joe Nickell—the dean of
scientific paranormal investigation—and several others have
been exemplars for how to do a proper investigation of
paranormal claims. A special feature of Radford’s book is that
it consists largely of case studies he has personally
investigated. The reader is able to see how the principles of
investigation are applied to actual paranormal claims. But the
main value of Radford’s book is that he lays out what should and
should not be done in a proper scientific investigation.

Radford tells the
reader that his book “focuses on the practical aspects of
applied skepticism….powerful, real-world ideas for critically
examining everything from crime scenes to psychic powers to
personal decisions.” These ideas have been drawn “largely from
the scientific process, psychology, criminal investigation
techniques, and logic.” As such, the ideas Radford explores in
the first few chapters have valuable applications beyond
paranormal investigations. Scientific Paranormal Investigations
would be a valuable addition to the library of every journalist
and skeptic. But the thousands of people who investigate weird
or mysterious things and the millions of readers and viewers who
follow their investigations would benefit the most.

I won’t relieve the
lazy reader of the obligation to read Radford’s book by
summarizing the principles of a proper scientific investigation.
Here I will simply note that the goal of a proper investigation
of the paranormal is neither to prove nor disprove any
particular claim. Radford puts it this way: “Good science is not
about advocacy; while all scientists have their biases and pet
theories, their ultimate loyalty should be to the truth.” If you
set out to prove or disprove the existence of a ghost at a
particular location, you are not doing a scientific
investigation. If the show you are watching or the book you are
reading does not consider alternative hypotheses, it is not a
scientific investigation. If an author claims that the subject
of his attention or investigation is “beyond science,” you’re
dealing with mysticism, not mysteries. Paranormal claims are
claims that may mystify us, but if they are truly beyond science
then they are beyond our ability to know or understand them. A
book or film on such topics would be very short, unless it
contains much speculation and storytelling. Paranormal claims
are investigated precisely because they both mystify us and
present themselves as mysteries we can hope to solve.

Unfortunately, too
many people who try to investigate rather than validate or
debunk paranormal claims are unprepared to do a proper
investigation. They may have good intentions, but the road to
error is paved with good intentions. Having the right tools is
essential, but as Radford makes painfully clear, you can’t buy
the most important tools you need. You can’t pick them up in a
weekend training session. It takes years of hard work to develop
the knowledge and skills needed to be a scientific paranormal
investigator. Contrary to what you might see on television,
having an abundance of scientific gadgets is not as important as
knowledge of the subject, knowledge of psychology, good logical
reasoning skills, and an open mind.

Radford’s book does
what a scientific paranormal investigation should do: it helps
the reader distinguish the real thing from the fake.